Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Aug 2002 08:30:39 -0700 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: [BUG+FIX] 2.4 buggercache sucks |
| |
Andrew had a new version that he just submitted to 2.5, but it may not backport easily.
The agreement at OLS was to treat read and write seperately - nuke them immediately for one side, and reclaim under mem pressure for the other. Half of Andrea's patch, and half of Andrew's. Unfortunately I can never remember which was which ;-) And I don't think anyone has rolled that together yet ....
Summary: the code below probably isn't the desired solution.
M.
--On Wednesday, August 28, 2002 11:28 AM +0200 Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <roy@karlsbakk.net> wrote:
> hi > > the patch below has now been tested out for quite some time. > > Will it be likely to see this into 2.4.20? > > roy > > > On Friday 24 May 2002 21:32, Andrew Morton wrote: >> "Martin J. Bligh" wrote: >> > >> Sounds like exactly the same problem we were having. There are two >> > >> approaches to solving this - Andrea has a patch that tries to free >> > >> them under memory pressure, akpm has a patch that hacks them down as >> > >> soon as you've fininshed with them (posted to lse-tech mailing list). >> > >> Both approaches seemed to work for me, but the performance of the >> > >> fixes still has to be established. >> > > >> > > Where can I find the akpm patch? >> > >> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lse-tech&m=102083525007877&w=2 >> > >> > > Any plans to merge this into the main kernel, giving a choice >> > > (in config or /proc) to enable this? >> > >> > I don't think Andrew is ready to submit this yet ... before anything >> > gets merged back, it'd be very worthwhile testing the relative >> > performance of both solutions ... the more testers we have the >> > better ;-) >> >> Cripes no. It's pretty experimental. Andrea spotted a bug, too. Fixed >> version is below. >> >> It's possible that keeping the number of buffers as low as possible >> will give improved performance over Andrea's approach because it >> leaves more ZONE_NORMAL for other things. It's also possible that >> it'll give worse performance because more get_block's need to be >> done for file overwriting. >>
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |